Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Statement by Newimpartial: @Red-tailed hawk Tag: Reverted |
|||
Line 318: | Line 318: | ||
::{{talk quote|The statement in mainspace for which the Monque source is currently used (as one of two sources) is, ''The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary".'' The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.}} |
::{{talk quote|The statement in mainspace for which the Monque source is currently used (as one of two sources) is, ''The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary".'' The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.}} |
||
::Your accusation that I {{tq|repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR}} is not, I think, bourne out by the actual discussion as it transpired. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
::Your accusation that I {{tq|repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR}} is not, I think, bourne out by the actual discussion as it transpired. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
Red-tailed hawk: I didn't cite or even refer to a Masters' thesis at [[Talk:LGB Alliance]], at any time. I don't know what you're talking about. |
|||
====Statement by Shibbolethink==== |
====Statement by Shibbolethink==== |
Revision as of 04:47, 13 November 2022
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Saucysalsa30
Saucysalsa30 topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan for six months |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Saucysalsa30
As explained in full at BLP/N, Saucysalsa30 reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse Vermont Democrat Peter Galbraith (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ( Meanwhile, at Talk:Peter Galbraith (albeit prior to being notified of the AP2 sanctions), Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as a "controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially", which heightened my BLP concerns. Furthermore, Saucysalsa30 incorrectly labelled my own edits to the article as "vandalism" and "disruptive editing." To me, this behavior is unacceptable in any article that falls within a DS topic area. And, while I drafted this as an AP2 complaint, I doubt that the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area benefits by having an editor who incorrectly states that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), or that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (citing a source that directly, repeatedly contradicts this assertion).
Saucysalsa30 incorrectly states that this diff constitutes a formal warning to stop WP:HOUNDING him from EvergreenFir. However, the note, which does not mention HOUNDING, concerned a dispute at just one article (Racism in the Arab world), whereas
Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Saucysalsa30The last paragraph is false accusations and he had also hounded me on Anfal page, where he spent days bludgeoning and attacking multiple users when consensus and sourcing was against him. His first edit in that Talk page was to attack me with similar misrepresentations/insults, which I and others refuted him on such as this[5]. TheTimesAreAChanging made this request right after an edit with personal attacks and falsities about me, including the very first sentence[6]: While he's WP:HOUNDING/attacked me in the past and an admin gave him a formal warning to stop doing so, in this latest instance, TheTimesAreAChanging followed me to an article where he had no prior activity, and engaged me in his edit summaries. He noticed on 10/27 I had activity on Peter Galbraith [7] in which I fixed failed-verification/OR/BLP violations, and explained my changes in the Talk page with sources. His edit summaries comprised false accusations/attacks and OR, which I refuted in the Talk page. Contrary to the claim, TheTimesAreAChanging started edit warring, with his first edit on the article being a partial revert, and made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours.
He did not bother to explain his changes in the Talk page, like I had, demonstrating an unwillingness to build consensus. This accusation by TheTimes is false: TheTimes' other accusation is wrong. I never said Galbraith "singlehandedly concocted it", and his embellishment demonstrates the deceptiveness of his request. Galbraith drafted a bill making the claim he championed before the US government. Saying "his claim" is correct. Here is a definition of "claim". Galbraith made a statement that something was true, with the addition of not being proven, and introduced legislation in the US government. TheTimesAreAChanging had been indefinitely blocked before on the topic of American politics[9] for disruptive editing and not gaining consensus, and in this case he did not seek consensus either. He was also blocked for violating the topic ban. He later requested for it to be lifted, and given his continued disruptive behavior on Peter Galbraith and other articles the the original topic ban was for, it appears justified to reinstate it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC) In his addendum[10], TheTimesAreAChanging admits to being warned by EvergreenFir to WP:DISENGAGE from me yet has still hounded and engaged me on Wikipedia multiple times since then as I proved. In fact, he had hounded me in that very situation in which EvergreenFir had to intervene. On Jan 19-20, 2021, TheTimesAreAChanging and another editor Qahramani44 stalked me, immediately following an unrelated content dispute, over to Racism in the Arab world and Ba'athism where I had just a few days earlier fixed copyvio and other issues. TTAAC had no prior activity on the first article/Talk page, and only previously had a few sporadic unilateral reverts on the second. Qahramani44 had no prior edits on either article/Talk page. Here is my initial diff on Racism in the Arab world [11]. Qahramani44's first edit on the page [12] and TTAAC's first edit [13] came only after mine, and they made a number of Talk page comments directed at me and edit warring following that. EvergreenFir had to intervene, removing TTAAC's last Talk page comment and telling him to "Stop the bullshit". TTAAC defiantly reverted it[14] calling EvergreenFir's actions "wildly inappropriate". EvergreenFir re-reverted this[15] and temporarily protected the article.[16] The story on Ba'athism is the same. I made my first edit [17]. TheTimesAreAChanging's edit[18] and Qahramani44's[19] stalked me to this article too, with more comments and edit warring to follow by them like in the other article. EvergreenFir intervened here too temporarily protecting the article[20] and EvergreenFir agreed with the copyvio I originally fixed when attempt to re-introduce it was made.[21] Uninvolved editors have politely asked TTAAC to stop harassing me and other editors, such as [22][23][24][25] In one example, admin HandThatFeeds had to correct TTAAC's false charges against an editor multiple times: "Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that (sic) you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior?" and "I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. ... Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction." In an attempt to defend himself in an ANI section about his conduct, he falsely accused me of making a real-world threat/crime in August 2022, claiming that I somehow know his address and sending him "fan mail" making a threat. He got the dates wrong in this ridiculous accusation too; his attacking me came in January 2021 (EvergreenFir intervention case), not March 2021 as he falsely states where I had only 2 unrelated edits[26][27], so his
Statement by RAN1I'm only filing this statement since I DS-alerted Saucysalsa30 (in fact, my alert is the only one that appears in the DS tag search). I only became aware of Saucysalsa30's actions through TTAAC's BLP post. The post ran long, so I didn't look through any of the 10+ diffs in it, and assumed this was a recent development and that Saucysalsa30 hadn't been alerted before today. I researched the relevant citation, verified it and reverted Saucysalsa30 because they claimed the material failed verification before their edit summary war with TTAAC. I then alerted both them and TTAAC on the Kurds DS. I didn't think there would be a prior deleted notice if this was at BLPN, so I didn't see Saucysalsa30 had been alerted 3 months ago until after this AE section showed up in my watchlist. RAN1 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Paradise ChronicleAs I have been mentioned I want to explain a bit. I gave the DS awareness note on Kurds and Kurdistan to both editors here and here as they appear to have an issue in the topic area and if only one knows about the DS the other editor might be surprised (blocked, TB'd) that there apply different rules for the topic area than in the "normal" wikipedia. That said I believe the issue escalated into an ArbCom case per email in which case some Admins might be more familiar with the issue between the two.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC) On the AE side for Kurds and Kurdistan. I also have noticed that Saucysalsa30 is rather doubtful of Kurdish victims during the Halabja chemical attack or during the Al Anfal campaign. For the Admins and also the reporting and discussing editors sake I'd say its more efficient to strongly warn (once more and a temporary block is in place) them for bludgeoning and disruptive editing as their numerous talk page edits are often of 1000s of bytes with a lot of text not really on the topic and to produce and read the diffs is rather a tiring work. At Peter Galbraith they are number 1 Here and assembled a 30% share of added content in 3 days. and at Al Anfal they are way off the top here with a ca. 2/3 share of added content in the entire existence of the article within less than 2 months. This is way more than all editors together in the top 10 combined.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning Saucysalsa30
|
TheTranarchist
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning TheTranarchist
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TheTranarchist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 22:39, 11 November 2022 starting an off-topic argument with InverseZebra.
- 23:41, 11 November 2022 continuing that argument.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, at 21:39, 23 January 2022.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021, a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint.
After InverseZebra posted about Monque's use of the term TERF at 21:24, 11 November 2022, TheTranarchist posted the above diffs, starting and sustaining an off-topic argument with InverseZebra and Newimpartial.
- @LokiTheLiar: InverseZebra clearly wasn't here to edit an encyclopedia, and that's exactly why I filed this. There was nothing InverseZebra posted there that would improve the content. TheTranarchist could have posted:
Still haven't seen a single real reason not to include it. Still a peer-reviewed source last I checked
, and that would have done it. Instead they posted a page of text that turned the topic into a forum thread. RAN1 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC) - Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning TheTranarchist
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by TheTranarchist
Statement by (username)
Statement by DanielRigal
I don't think it is really correct to describe that first diff as "starting an off-topic argument" as the argument is already in progress. Furthermore, I suspect that InverseZebra, who is rapidly sliding towards either an indef or a topic ban here, may be being intentionally disruptive and trying to provoke such responses. Of course, it would have been better if TheTranarchist hadn't risen to it but I can't help but sympathise with her for doing so. I don't think any sanction or action is required other than maybe advising her to try not to feed those who show signs of troll-like behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statment by Loki
I think this filing should be discarded as obviously frivolous. Even if everything the filer claimed were true, it's not a violation of discretionary sanctions to argue about the content of a page on its talk page. The argument in question was about whether a source used a slur or not; it's relevant in that context whether "TERF" is a slur. Loki (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
How can starting an "off-topic argument" be a violation of discretionary sanctions involving the subject? That seems rather contradictory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Result concerning TheTranarchist
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
InverseZebra
InverseZebra blocked indef as a normal admin action. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning InverseZebra
TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021, a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint. After InverseZebra posted about Monque's use of the term TERF at 21:24, 11 November 2022, TheTranarchist made an off-topic post about the term at 22:39. InverseZebra then proceeded to make the first response, then the second response after TheTranarchist replied at 23:41, then the third after Newimpartial replied at 02:05 on 12 November.
InverseZebra has finally been indeffed, I agree with SideSwipe9th that this should be closed. RAN1 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning InverseZebraStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by InverseZebraStatement by ShibbolethinkSee below, obvious content dispute is obvious. This is an inappropriate use of WP:AE. RAN1, you would be much better served by bringing these things to WP:3O or WP:DRN in the future.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Sideswipe9thInverseZebra has just been indeffed by RickinBaltimore ([59]). Can all three of these discussions be closed as moot please, as there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to be here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenConsidering that the subject editor is indeffed, and CBANs and TBANs are under consideration at ANI, this report is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning InverseZebra
|
Newimpartial
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Newimpartial
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 22:55, 4 November 2022 claiming that because editors cannot use original interpretations of primary sources in article content, they cannot use interpretation to determine whether a primary source is used in the article, contrary to policy at WP:PRIMARY:
Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
- 17:53, 5 November 2022 ditto,
it is simply not the job of editors to determine whether a reliable source has {{tq|properly sourced itself}}
and also accusing InverseZebra of. Amended 01:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)POV axe-grinding
- 17:22, 7 November 2022 ditto, claiming that examining peer-reviewed sources is out-of-scope on talk pages.
- 02:05, 12 November 2022 arguing off-topic with InverseZebra.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, at 22:55, 30 July 2022
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021, a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint.
Newimpartial's response includes the above diffs. They consistently insisted that any editor review of the sources was OR and therefore inappropriate, disrupting discussion and prompting an off-topic argument between TheTranarchist and InverseZebra, to which they became a party in the last diff.
- @Newimpartial: I take issue with bringing up OR to defend primary research when it says to be careful about misuse. It becomes a conduct issue when you repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR. RAN1 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: That's what I got out of
[e]ditors are not really supposed to factor in their original interpretations of primary sources in determining article content
and the like. We can only repeat what others said in the content, but that isn't true for deciding whether to repeat them. RAN1 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: That's what I got out of
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Newimpartial
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Newimpartial
This filing seems more than a little bit bizarre. I would not have thought that my argument, that the editor in question was engaged in original interpretation (in fact, misinterpretation) of a WP:PRIMARY source, would be sufficiently controversial as to lead to an AE filing. Clearly I have been seeking attention in the wrong ways all these years, when all I had to do was to make this obvious argument. :p Newimpartial (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
RAN1, your statement that I consistently insisted that any editor review of the sources was OR and therefore inappropriate
is simply inaccurate. Also, if anyone had any issues with my conduct at Talk:LGB Alliance they had every opportunity to raise those issues at my own Talk. I don't understand why you felt this filing (or the one against TheTranarchist) was remotely necessary. It looks to me like some ridiculous impulse towards BOTHSIDESism - and the "other side" that was crusading in Talk:LGB Alliance in the first place has sonce been indef-blocked as a result of the ANI filing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- And RAN1, I did not
repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR
. Please strike your unfounded allegation. My position throughout that discussion was that each source must be reliable for the claim for which it is cited, and that no reasonable argument had been made that the piece in question was reliable for the purpose for which it was used (namely, that at least one scholarly article referred to the Alliance as "anti-trans"). Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)- Concerning your latest comment, RAN1, I did say that, but I also specified
The slight of hand you are doing between fact and opinion - essentially, accusing sources of being biased in service of your own biases - isn't based on SO policy and really ought to be ignored in determining article content
, thenAdvocating the removal of content cited to academic sources because an editor happens to disagree with said content is simply not how Wikipedia works
and subsequently the following: The statement in mainspace for which the Monque source is currently used (as one of two sources) is, The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary". The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.
- Your accusation that I
repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR
is not, I think, bourne out by the actual discussion as it transpired. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Concerning your latest comment, RAN1, I did say that, but I also specified
Red-tailed hawk: I didn't cite or even refer to a Masters' thesis at Talk:LGB Alliance, at any time. I don't know what you're talking about.
Statement by Shibbolethink
I got the hell out of this space a few months ago due to how much disruption is present, but I would overall consider myself "uninvolved" in this dispute and do not remember how Newimpartial felt about any of the old disputes and don't think it's particularly important to look. I have an inkling that they and I have disagreed a few times in the past. I have never heard of RAN1 before.
Regardless of that, this seems overall to be an extremely clear content dispute and thus inappropriate for AE. Nothing here is particularly actionable from an AE perspective. OP should be admonished for bringing an obvious content dispute to AE, and directed to pursue much more appropriate avenues like WP:3O, WP:RFCs, and WP:DRN in the future. This is a waste of everyone's time here. User:RAN1, if I were you, I would actually strongly consider withdrawing this.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- see this ANI discussion where several editors tell RAN1 filing here at AE is a bad idea. They were right. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statment by Loki
Just like above, I think this filing should be discarded as obviously frivolous. Even if everything the filer claimed were true, it's not a violation of discretionary sanctions to argue about the content of a page on its talk page. Loki (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by DanielRigal
I'm struggling to see what Newimpartial has done wrong except maybe allow themself to get slightly more wound up by an argumentative and disruptive editor than is advisable. I can't see how that is sanctionable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Hard smelly trout for RAN1 for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Red-tailed hawk
Ordinarily, a master's thesis is not considered reliable, though some might be if they are particularly influential and widely cited in their field (like A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits). But frankly I don't see evidence that the master's thesis that the filer wants to cite as being one of these. While the existence of the thesis technically defeats WP:OR claims, it doesn't defeat issues related to WP:NPOV (since we only care about things written about in reliable sources under that policy). That being said, I have no idea what this thesis has to do with actions by Newimpartial, who does not appear to have made any contentious edits that cite that thesis.
If you want something to examine about Newimpartial's recent history, I would point to a clear case where they inserted a BLP violation into an article on a journalist rather than following WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but I don't think that alone is sufficient to warrant an AE complaint since they're not edit warring the BLP violation back into the article. It seems reasonable to close this thread without action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Newimpartial
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.